There is fury in Dublin and London at the IRA's equivocation, writes Gerry Moriarty, Northern Editor
George Bush and Tony Blair could take Baghdad, but they couldn't take Belfast. Against great expectation the community sank back into despair and deflation once again. And this time there is a shared consensus outside of Sinn Féin headquarters that republicans are responsible.
On Tuesday the US President, the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach issued a very clear and unambiguous message to the IRA. "The break with paramilitarism in all its past forms must be clear and irrevocable," they said.
On Wednesday evening Mr Blair and Mr Ahern knew what statement the IRA would issue in response to the blueprint for restoring devolution that they were planning on publishing in Hillsborough yesterday.
The two leaders were aghast when they were told of the IRA wording, according to informed sources.
"It wasn't even in the ball-park of what was required," said a senior Ulster Unionist who also had an "understanding" of what the IRA statement contained. "Selfish and self-serving," said an SDLP source, with a similar understanding.
Another source elaborated: "The IRA statement had to be about building trust and confidence. Remember you are dealing here with plain-speaking people in the Ulster Unionist Party who, to run with this deal, needed a clear and unambiguous statement from the IRA that its war was over. That was not available."
It brought to mind the distinction the former Presbyterian minister, the Rev John Dunlop, made between Catholics and Protestants. "Catholics can read what's between the lines, Protestants only see what is on the lines."
The IRA statement was full of fudge, uncertain promise and ellipses, sources said. It did not reveal in clear terms how the IRA would respond to the blueprint, they said. Officially Mr Ahern and Mr Blair tried to remain calm, stressing that the situation was retrievable.
But behind the scenes the anger and frustration in Dublin and London was capable of being bottled. Nobody was talking of sending gunships up the Lagan, but they might have been thinking about it.
"All the IRA statement did was play into the hands of those who say, these people just can't let go, that they are not serious about bringing this conflict to an end," one normally cautious and temperate insider told The Irish Times.
Sinn Féin, through hard years of conflict, exclusion and broadcasting bans, is well used to handling the blame game. The leaders know that when the world starts ganging up on the party its core constituency holds firm, rather like "nobody-likes-us-but-we-don't-care" Manchester United fans.
The republican guard of Mr Mitchel McLaughlin, Mr Pat O'Doherty, Ms Bairbre de Brún, and Mr Alex Maskey turned out on radio and television yesterday, spurred on by the words of their leader, Mr Gerry Adams, who even before we knew the blueprint publication was off was outlining his party's defence yesterday morning.
He said "considerable progress" had been made on several issues such as "policing, criminal justice, and the stability of the institutions, demilitarisation, human rights and equality".
But "critical issues" remained, such as sanctions for those in breach of Belfast Agreement commitments, the timing for the transfer of power on policing and criminal justice and "the absence of any clear commitment from the Ulster Unionist Party that it will work the institutions in a sustainable way".
That was the Sinn Féin line for the rest of the day. They added that accusations against the IRA were spin-doctoring. The party also demanded that the governments publish their blueprint so that the public could test if it was as comprehensive as the governments claimed.
This is what they call chutzpah, or people on these islands call brass neck, was the effective Dublin and London response: why reveal a bottom line so that it could be pocketed and banked by Sinn Féin in the expectation of further concessions at the next phase of negotiations?
Republicans are known for their tactical genius, but the question has to be asked: have the de-facto leaders of the broad republican movement, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, miscalculated here?
One politician with a devious mind speculated that perhaps republicans were working to a Machiavellian scheme, saying: "Perhaps, if the IRA plays hardball now and then does a turnaround 'in the interests of political stability' people will be so relieved they will vote for them in droves." Perhaps.
Another source close to the Bush-Blair-Ahern talks at Hillsborough on Tuesday was unimpressed. "Everybody is tired of all this adolescent behaviour. If republicans maintain this position they could find themselves so far on the outside that they are off the planet," he said.
Were there a great revolt within republicanism it could explain the IRA's reticence to be explicit about future intentions. But again the security and general grassroots word is that Adams and McGuinness are firmly in control of the movement, so that argument doesn't appear to hold.
If this deadlock persists then it must be very problematic whether the May 29th Assembly elections will take place. And the fact is that.while most unionists would probably prefer devolution, most unionists can also live with direct rule.
Nationalists can't, even if it is a greener version of direct rule.
So what does the IRA do next then? It hardly makes sense that it would go back to war, Sinn Féin having made such huge political gains on the back of the peace rather than the conflict.
British and Irish sources say all is not yet lost. Rather like the US cavalry, President Bush's Irish point man, Mr Richard Haass, was last night on standby to return to Northern Ireland to assist in getting everyone out of this mess.
Were the IRA to alter the nature of its statement so that Mr Trimble could clearly state that it was retiring from active business and destroying arms caches to bolster that point, perhaps Northern Ireland could be rescued from the brink of political collapse.
At Downing Street yesterday evening the Taoiseach and Prime Minister made their bottom line clear. There had to be total clarity and certainty. There could not be ambiguity, they said. The language from republicans had to change, said Mr Blair.
So, no agreement on the fifth calendar anniversary of the Belfast Agreement. The next few days will be about all parties striving to rescue this deal on or by Good Friday, the religious anniversary.